What is "Bible Church" supposed to mean?

Love &Forgiveness · Sep 13, 2018

Thir7ySev3n said:
And this is constituent to your argument that we don't need the Bible? You will find it is impossible to argue against the necessity of the Bible without referring to the Bible, or otherwise essentially declaring yourself a prophet, which you would verify referring to the Bible designating the ministry and enabling of the Holy Spirit, as described in the Bible. Unless, of course, you want to simply be so audacious as to simply assert that, and then you can join the ranks of the antiquated and contemporary false prophets and say whatever you wish with the pretense of authority.

If this were true there would not be shepherds and teachers as inferior ministers of what the Holy Spirit is already doing without, in God's providence, human intervention (Ephesians 4:11-12). We wouldn't be commended that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)," because the man of God would be "fully equipped" without the Bible. After all, why even say this? Why write anything after Christ's ascension if this were true? Because it is not, and operating without full accountability to the Word of God is dangerous for you and anyone who listens to you while you are walking in this manner.

The reasons you establish for the Bible's "usefulness" here actually demonstrates why it is necessary. If the Holy Spirit has been assigned by Christ to be sufficient for our Christian walk apart from, ironically, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God then why do we need to teach, rebuke, and verify truth? Certainly the Holy spirit, if He decided to operate this way, would not need our cooperation. And certainly you do not think that verifying truth is merely "useful." Jesus and the apostles also used the Scriptures to demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ (Luke 4:14-21, Matthew's countless quotes, Acts of the Apostles 17:2-12, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), showing us that the Holy Spirit is not rendering obsolete or unnecessary His inspired written Word in the work of salvation and verifying Jesus' Messiahship.

We need the Bible to establish collective accountability of the saints and thereby preclude self-confident self-determination (the purpose for which we practice 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:6), because, as aforementioned, it is the only means by which we identify false teachers pretending to the witness of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture is also necessary to equip us for every good work (again, 2 timothy 3:16-17), to prepare us for Christ's return (Matthew 24:25-44), to resist the devil's superior (as compared to ours) cunning (Matthew 4:4-10), and to give us vital insight into God's dealings with man through inspired historical accounts (Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 10:11), among other things.

In summary, the only person who doesn't need a Bible is the person who remembers their Bible. But then you have not eliminated it's necessity but, by practice, recognized how much you need it. Obviously there are special circumstances, such as a person who is unable to read or has no access to their own Bible, but such people, for the aforementioned reasons, need the nurturing and guidance of someone who knows their Bible well or can read it to them.

Thank you for your reply.

Truthfully I don't need the Bible. It has helped me believe and it has helped show me that I am on the right path, and it has helped me to see people that I want to stay away from, so you are correct it does equip me, but I know all that is written on my heart. For me the problem is not knowing right and wrong, it is the contradiction with religion. Religion tells me that they know the true way, but I know they have no clue. They think it is found in the Bible, but it is found in Jesus and Jesus lives in my heart. They make their false religion sound like the Truth. When this comes into question we can use the Bible to prove they are wrong, but for me and maybe other believers we already know they are wrong. Tribes found in isolation knew of God even without the Bible. In my opinion they were living much more "civilized" then we do with the Bible. When evangelist come they spread our diseases and our sins. Most of the tribe members die from westerner diseases. It seems like they would have been better off alone in the jungle. Bible knowledge doesn't save us, our actions do. If we followed our inner sense of right and wrong we would know the Right Way, but we don't. Most people don't even believe that the Bible is the inspired Truth. I can see many religious people that read and know their Bibles won't be going to Heaven because they don't live it, Faith is in the heart, not the head. They think they are okay because they know all the doctrine, but doctrine doesn't save us, Faith does. We are saved through Faith, not knowledge.

dqhall · Sep 13, 2018

redleghunter said:
Here in the Belt Buckle of the Bible Belt my observation is most Bible churches are planted by the Reformed Baptist.

These churches tend to be small in size compared to mega churches and populated by mainly younger couples with loads of children.

They also tend to be networked with like churches locally and regionally.

Matthew 18:20 (WEB) "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the middle of them”

I read a biography about an Olympic athlete who was drawn to Christ after attending a Billy Graham tent meetings with his wife. He and his wife started an organization to reform delinquent youth.

The largest denomination in the world once killed thousands upon thousands of Protestants for not doing as they were told. They called them devils, schismatics and rebels. They were chided as they were not Catholic and mocked as heretics.

The Bible has been used by people to justify both good and evil. A person can find passages against slavery, or passages to support slavery. Merely having a Bible is not the same as being saved. Some have used the Bible to justify war, killing and stealing of lands. Some have used the Bible to learn not to kill people or steal.

Albion · Sep 13, 2018

gideon123 said:
ALL churches read and use the Bible every week. Protestant and Catholic. Pastors and Priests. They all read the Bible every week ... and the same verses.

But for some inexplicable reason, "Bible Churches" believe that they are above everyone else, and that only they read the Bible. Its just another form.of human snobbery.

My advice is ... dont worship with people with small minds.

Blessings!

Well now, quite a few denominations choose names that to some degree "one-up" all the competing churches, don't they? The Apostolic churches, the Orthodox churches, the Catholic churches, the Reformed churches, Churches of Christ, and others are all using names that apply -- or could just as well apply -- to many other churches, except that they took the key term for themselves.

To that extent, the Bible churches don't seem any worse than these.

And it is not true that there isn't any logic whatsoever to them using the term for themselves, since it is the case that these "Bible Churches" do essentially go by (and intend to go by) the Bible to the exclusion of a lot of other guidance systems that many other churches use, such as Holy Tradition, direct inspiration, continuing prophesy, etc.

JoeP222w · Sep 13, 2018

David Cabrera said:
Don't all churches believe in the Bible and have worship based on them?

No. There are many organizations that label themselves as a "church" but they are not the Bride of Christ. There are even Atheist "churches" but clearly they hate the Bible.

JoeP222w · Sep 13, 2018

dreadnought said:
I think there are a lot of Christians that don't believe that.

If a person rejects the truth of the Bible, they are simply not Christian.

JoeP222w · Sep 13, 2018

Love &Forgiveness said:
Many people think they need the Bible, but we don't.

You can't know Jesus Christ if you reject His word.

Love &Forgiveness said:
God is self-revealing.

Yes, all creation declares the glory of God. However, this is not enough for a person to be saved and have eternal life.

Love &Forgiveness said:
This means that Salvation is in Jesus, not Biblical knowledge.

They are not mutually exclusive. In a sense, yes, you do not need perfect, exhaustive Biblical knowledge to be saved, but if you do not know the words of God or do not seek to further study them, you do not know Christ.

OzSpen · Sep 13, 2018

David Cabrera said:
Don't all churches believe in the Bible and have worship based on them?

No!

OzSpen · Sep 13, 2018

Love &Forgiveness said:
You don't need the Bible. There are Saved people that don't have a Bible. There are nations with no Bible translations. Does that mean they are not Saved? No! We need child-like Faith. The whole Bible is about Jesus. If you have Jesus you have the Bible in your heart. True Believers have the Bible is written on their heart and mind. The Bible is a useful resource for teaching, rebuking, verifying Truth, but not necessary. All you need is Love. To love God and love others. That sums it up! But Love comes from God through a relationship with Jesus.

For those people without a Bible, how do they hear the Gospel to be saved? Or, is no preaching of the Gospel needed?

From where do we get the content of the Gospel?

Love &Forgiveness · Sep 13, 2018

Thir7ySev3n said:
And this is constituent to your argument that we don't need the Bible? You will find it is impossible to argue against the necessity of the Bible without referring to the Bible, or otherwise essentially declaring yourself a prophet, which you would verify referring to the Bible designating the ministry and enabling of the Holy Spirit, as described in the Bible. Unless, of course, you want to simply be so audacious as to simply assert that, and then you can join the ranks of the antiquated and contemporary false prophets and say whatever you wish with the pretense of authority.

If this were true there would not be shepherds and teachers as inferior ministers of what the Holy Spirit is already doing without, in God's providence, human intervention (Ephesians 4:11-12). We wouldn't be commended that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)," because the man of God would be "fully equipped" without the Bible. After all, why even say this? Why write anything after Christ's ascension if this were true? Because it is not, and operating without full accountability to the Word of God is dangerous for you and anyone who listens to you while you are walking in this manner.

The reasons you establish for the Bible's "usefulness" here actually demonstrates why it is necessary. If the Holy Spirit has been assigned by Christ to be sufficient for our Christian walk apart from, ironically, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God then why do we need to teach, rebuke, and verify truth? Certainly the Holy spirit, if He decided to operate this way, would not need our cooperation. And certainly you do not think that verifying truth is merely "useful." Jesus and the apostles also used the Scriptures to demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ (Luke 4:14-21, Matthew's countless quotes, Acts of the Apostles 17:2-12, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), showing us that the Holy Spirit is not rendering obsolete or unnecessary His inspired written Word in the work of salvation and verifying Jesus' Messiahship.

We need the Bible to establish collective accountability of the saints and thereby preclude self-confident self-determination (the purpose for which we practice 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:6), because, as aforementioned, it is the only means by which we identify false teachers pretending to the witness of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture is also necessary to equip us for every good work (again, 2 timothy 3:16-17), to prepare us for Christ's return (Matthew 24:25-44), to resist the devil's superior (as compared to ours) cunning (Matthew 4:4-10), and to give us vital insight into God's dealings with man through inspired historical accounts (Romans 15:4, 1 Corinthians 10:11), among other things.

In summary, the only person who doesn't need a Bible is the person who remembers their Bible. But then you have not eliminated it's necessity but, by practice, recognized how much you need it. Obviously there are special circumstances, such as a person who is unable to read or has no access to their own Bible, but such people, for the aforementioned reasons, need the nurturing and guidance of someone who knows their Bible well or can read it to them.

Since you base your Faith on the Bible we should look at what the Bible tells us about being Saved. Most of the Jews who where zealous about religion and about Scripture never found God and even killed God and His followers. Saul aka Paul was this kind of Jew, zealous about religion and Scripture. He persecuted Jesus's followers. When Paul was Saved it wasn't by his religion and his Scriptural knowledge, he was Saved by Jesus on the road to Dumascus. The Bible is here to point us to Jesus, not to point to us. Jesus Saves us, not our ability to follow the Scriptures. For additional proof of this point, the men Jesus chose to be His followers were not Jewish scholars, they were fisherman and tax collectors. He chose ordinary people who had no special Scripture knowledge or training. What they had was a relationship with Jesus, not with religion or with Scripture.

PeaceByJesus · Sep 13, 2018

FireDragon76 said:
I dislike how the word is used now days. Sometimes the term is used when in the past people would have simply said "Protestant". For instance, some news sources have called Pr. Nadia Bolz-Weber an evangelical (which is true in the sense we understand it, but I'm not sure that is intended by the journalist), and other times it's used to refer specifically to white, culturally conservative Protestants, in constradistinction to mainline, liberal Protestants (which is from an historical perspective, relatively meaningless). It's very frustrating.

But I guess the term "evangelical" has gained currency in its misusage, and its stuck, and I tend to use it that way, but it still stinks. And I think it could lead to a great deal of confusion in the broader culture about our various religious traditions.

Catholic Answers sometimes uses "Bible Christian" as synonymous with "Fundamentalist," in the pejorative of course, and with CA's typical skews, since it is such that are its enemies (besides the SSPV, who pointed out their salaries ).

As with "born again," which is what many pollsters use for "evangelical " (placing them in one camp), "evangelical" was a term used to distinguish conservative believers who held to certain fundamentals. But that has become diluted just as the term "Christian" has, so that today it can even refer to those who reject holy living/moral purity a being of much importance to Jesus' ministry, and reject as bronze age and iron age values His and His Spirit's teachings such as defines marriage as btwn male and female, with all other sexual relations being condemned as fornication, and the man as the head of the family, and attack those who hold to such as necessarily being self-righteous Pharisees who do not see humanitarian aid as important.

Why we even have such liberals on CF!

PeaceByJesus · Sep 13, 2018

Love &Forgiveness said:
Since you base your Faith on the Bible we should look at what the Bible tells us about being Saved. Most of the Jews who where zealous about religion and about Scripture never found God and even killed God and His followers. Saul aka Paul was this kind of Jew, zealous about religion and Scripture.

He persecuted Jesus's followers. When Paul was Saved it wasn't by his religion and his Scriptural knowledge, he was Saved by Jesus on the road to Dumascus. The Bible is here to point us to Jesus, not to point to us. Jesus Saves us, not our ability to follow the Scriptures. For additional proof of this point, the men Jesus chose to be His followers were not Jewish scholars, they were fisherman and tax collectors. He chose ordinary people who had no special Scripture knowledge or training. What they had was a relationship with Jesus, not with religion or with Scripture.

While of course it is true that we are not saved due to our ability to follow the Scriptures, for it it is Scripture which teaches salvation by effectual faith. Thus what you attack is actually the doctrinally basis for not being saved by our ability to follow the Scriptures, though Scripture also teaches that obedience is a necessary fruit is one is to be considered a true believer. (Hebrews 6:9,10)

However, "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," (Romans 10:17) and only Scripture is the assuredly wholly inspired substantive body of the word of God.

Your polemic overall is one big false dichotomy, that sets esteeming, looking to, and being zealous in the Scripture as the supreme standard as being in opposition to salvation, when in reality the very Christ you point to established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As did His apostles and preachers. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

It is because Paul was learned in the Scripture that he recognized the One who reproved Him on the road to Damascus was the Christ of the Scriptures who Stephen had preached about from the Scriptures, since Saul who was consenting unto Stephen's death, (Acts 22:20) a member of the very body that the Lord reproved Saul for attacking.

Therefore Paul did not respond to the Scriptural grace of salvation simply by preaching about Christ as some supernatural being he encountered on his way to kill followers, but after being filled with the Spirit (thru Ananias) whom the Scripture had promised to those who obey God, and being baptized, "straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is very Christ." (Acts 9:20,22)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2) "to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23)

For to His own disciples the Lord had "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself," (Luke 24:27) "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. (Luke 24:44-45)

Likewise "a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus," (Acts 18:24) after being more enlightened about the Scriptural Christ, "he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)

For writing is God's chosen means of sure preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11), thus when dealing with the people of God, Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures. (Acts 17:2)

Miracles also attested to their preaching, esp. for the Gentiles , (Rm. 15:19) but which themselves are not the supreme standard, since Scripture shows that the devil can also do such, though men like Moses outdo what the devil does. However, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced. And which noble souls ascertained the veracity of oral preaching by. (Acts 17:11)

Therefore, rather than esteeming, looking to, and being zealous in the Scriptures being set in opposition to a relationship with/knowing Christ, the former is to lead to the latter, faith coming by hearing the word of God, and the validity of one's object of faith and one's faith itself is defined by and subject to testing by the Scriptures.

PeaceByJesus · Sep 13, 2018

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Meanwhile, as far as professions go, it is actually Bible Christians, those who have most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture, who attest to the greatest degree of unity in common core beliefs [even those commonly held beliefs that Catholics are themselves supposed to agree on] as well as commitment, much in contrast to Catholics.

Jipsah said:
And "Bible Christians" presumably means "us and not y'all". Got it. And Catholics most certainly come under the heading of "y'all".

Back a few years ago. I was teaching at a Korean Evangelical church (probably not a "Bible Church" because we confessed the ancient Creeds of the Church, and most of its members are Korean) the pastor of a nondenom church next door killed and dismembered the church maintenance man, torched the building, emptied the church bank accounts, and lit out for parts unknown. Unfortunately for him, he used a church credit card while on the lam, so he was nicked somewhere up north and sent back to Nashville to face the music. More recently, the pastor of a Church of Christ here was caught breaking into cars at local malls during the Christmas shopping season, I guess to spread Christmas cheer amongst his friends and family. He did, or is ding, time for that. On that basis, I reckon it's time to call fotr a reformation of "Bible Churches", considering the number of Bible Church pastor who have robbed their churches, murdered their parishioners, carried on adulterous affairs with their church sisters, abused, sexually and otherwise, children left in their card, and generally demonstrated the most deplorable kind of depravity. So what are you doing to clean up the ghastly mess in Bible Churches? Or are you content to just sit there and pretend there's no problem there, and point accusing fingers at the Catholics/ Smells more than a little hypocritical to me.

Just what kind of argument is that? You not only define "Bible Christian" as necessarily not confessing the (unnamed) ancient Creeds of the Church, which would eliminate any member of CF as being one if they affirm the Nicene Creed as stated in the CF Statement of Faith, but then you choose certain moral failures of those in your selective definition to define what "Bible Christians" are.

And then charge me with pretend there's no problem in your selective definition of Bible Christianity and just picking on the Catholics. But which simply was not the context of whati was replying to, and which reply you decided to use ij your diatribe. (And one could thus charge you with ignoring the dirt in your churches in order to pick on Bible Churches.)

Instead, my response was to the propaganda that the Catholic Church "remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years," with the issue being just that, unity, with esteem of Scripture overall corresponding to this, versus the context being a pristine Bible Christianity versus Catholicism, though those of the latter testify to being more liberal in moral views.

And contrary to your selective denigrating definition, my statistical source actually affirmed some Catholics can be considered evangelical/Bible Christianity:

Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does. The Biblical literalist Catholic is as politically conservative as the Biblical literalist who is Evangelical (47.8%) or Mainline Protestant. (11.2%) American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

So much for your lecture on objectivity.

NW82 · Sep 13, 2018

ViaCrucis said:
I've never met a church that doesn't rely on Holy Scripture. So to that end I don't take issue with a church that says they rely on Scripture, even if I deeply disagree with their use and understanding of Scripture; or more accurately I don't hold that against them. Most of my ire is directed at a particular attitude of ignorance which says, "Everyone else relies on tradition, but we just use the Bible." It's ignorant because the use of Scripture is itself tradition, and because no one is free of tradition; and one shouldn't be. But, further, this attitude comes from many who are thoroughly ignorant of the history and context of Scripture, and seem to think that just by idly picking up a Bible and reading it they have suddenly uncovered the secret mysteries of the cosmos, and they alone are the possessors of it.

-CryptoLutheran

Hateful much? The Word of God isn't a tradition, it is His Word to us, unless you deny that point? Christ Himself warned against traditions in Matthew. People put too much faith in tradition and not enough in the Word of God. Context of the Bible should be referenced through the Bible, not a source outside the Bible. We are told to put to test what we hear, and if it isn't proved true through scripture then it is to be ignored.

Phil 1:21 · Sep 13, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Catholic Answers sometimes uses "Bible Christian" as synonymous with "Fundamentalist," in the pejorative of course, and with CA's typical skews, since it is such that are its enemies (besides the SSPV, who pointed out their salaries ).

The fact that an institution would consider following the word of God a negative tells us all we need to know about them.

aiki · Sep 13, 2018

David Cabrera said:
Don't all churches believe in the Bible and have worship based on them?

No. Some churches have strayed far afield from Scripture. Others have layered onto Scripture man-made traditions, obscuring, diminishing or warping Scripture in the process. Some churches add edicts from "on high" to Scripture, or have largely abandoned Scripture as myth, or "truth tales" that have only the loosest connection to history. Some churches think they are having new apostolic revelations from God, adding to Scripture modern prophecies and truths. So, no, not all churches believe in the Bible and worship in accord with it.

Albion · Sep 13, 2018

DamianWarS said:
is that not the same sentiment of the "evangelical" brand?

"Evangelical" is a term that is applied to a certain perspective held by members of all sorts of Protestant churches, but it is not ordinarily the name of a church/congregation itself, like "Oak Park Bible Church."

The latter, as others here have noted, comes close to being the name of a denomination although these congregations say they are non-denominational and the congregations are self-governing.

FireDragon76 · Sep 13, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Meanwhile, as far as professions go, it is actually Bible Christians, those who have most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture, who attest to the greatest degree of unity in common core beliefs [even those commonly held beliefs that Catholics are themselves supposed to agree on] as well as commitment, much in contrast to Catholics.

Just what kind of argument is that? You not only define "Bible Christian" as necessarily not confessing the (unnamed) ancient Creeds of the Church, which would eliminate any member of CF as being one if they affirm the Nicene Creed as stated in the CF Statement of Faith, but then you choose certain moral failures of those in your selective definition to define what "Bible Christians" are.

And then charge me with pretend there's no problem in your selective definition of Bible Christianity and just picking on the Catholics. But which simply was not the context of whati was replying to, and which reply you decided to use ij your diatribe. (And one could thus charge you with ignoring the dirt in your churches in order to pick on Bible Churches.)

Instead, my response was to the propaganda that the Catholic Church "remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years," with the issue being just that, unity, with esteem of Scripture overall corresponding to this, versus the context being a pristine Bible Christianity versus Catholicism, though those of the latter testify to being more liberal in moral views.

And contrary to your selective denigrating definition, my statistical source actually affirmed some Catholics can be considered evangelical/Bible Christianity:

Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does. The Biblical literalist Catholic is as politically conservative as the Biblical literalist who is Evangelical (47.8%) or Mainline Protestant. (11.2%) American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

So much for your lecture on objectivity.

This has more to do with identifying with the background of how the text of the Scriptures has been transmitted to us, rather than critical reading of the Bible. Authoritarianism in politics tends to go with authoritarianism in religion. But this particular method of reading the Bible isn't necessarily how Jesus used the Bible:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html

FireDragon76 · Sep 13, 2018

In the ELCA we say the Bible "contains the Word of God". Which means that we think the Bible has to be "unpacked", we don't subscribe to a dictation type idea of inspiration. The way we do that unpacking is reading the Bible confessionally and communally (sort of like the Anglican "3 legged stool").

That's far different from how most Bible churches do it, which is typically far less critical, less confessional or communal ("Don't like my interpretation? Find a new church!"), and typically there is alot of Common Sense Realism implied in the underlying approach ("The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."). It's uniquely American in its origin, even if it's spreading around the world due to globalism and missionary efforts.

Halbhh · Sep 13, 2018

thecolorsblend said:
I guess I always assumed it was code for "non-denominational".

But since "non-denominational" is kind of a meme now thanks to...

... we're more likely to see "Bible church" now, whatever that means.

I knew this would be clever and well done, and felt a guilty pleasure to see a SNL style skit about a "un" denominational church....but the funny thing that happened, is during the 2nd half, with the good natured humor it ended up bringing to mind that it's very good not to claim we know all things (yes?)....

8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

So, ironically, the skit makes me want to visit that imagined church, because that...undetermined...openness is what you and me and all are supposed to have. We are not supposed to think we have it all down, and all pat.

Albion · Sep 13, 2018

The three-legged stool idea doesn't postulate that the Bible is full of errors, however, and only "contains" God's truth among them.

What is "Bible Church" supposed to mean?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Facilitator

Similar threads